224 comments:

I treat the indiscriminate use of the word "racist" about the same as I do the use of the n- word. It's a conversation-ender in political discourse, as it should be. The use of either word in discussing political critics is a signal that one has no interest in debating the actual issues we are confronting, but is merely interested in attacking and insulting the critics.

The harshness? Has he been asleep for eight years? Obama isn't getting even one fiftieth of the crap the left spewed at Bush every day. There was an entire line of Kill Bush merchandise. When there's Kill Obama merchandise, movies books and plays written fantasizing about killing him, when Michelle Malkin waxes poetic about the 'blessed day' when Obama dies... then we can begin to talk about the harshness approaching what Bush went through.

Another boring loser conservative is whining about being called out on the fact that their so-called political movement is rife with ignorant, sour cretins who think health care reform is a secret plan to give money away to inner-city blacks and illegal mexicans.

Racists are likely going to be unhappy with a half-black man as President. But how you could fillet out that motive from criticism of the President is beyond me. Were W.'s critics mostly self-hating white folks? Was all their criticism well grounded in facts and logically analyzed?

A problem for the Democrats is that there isn't really a leader of the opposition to demonize. They have tried demonizing Rush or Glenn Beck, but most people don't really know who Beck or Rush is outside of their listeners. So instead the democrats directly criticize the people - to their own peril.

After Obama loses his bid for a second term, it will be because the country is racist I am sure.

Another boring loser conservative is whining about being called out on the fact that their so-called political movement is rife with ignorant, sour cretins who think health care reform is a secret plan to give money away to inner-city blacks and illegal mexicans.

Are you saying that "illegal Mexicans" and "inner city blacks" will not be net beneficiaries of Obamacare?

People are not upset about such groups receiving help, they are upset that Obama is taking from them to accomplish it.

It would be nice for a Democrat to say, "Opposition to Obama stems from people opposed to his policies. And perhaps from people who are opposed to him personally. I think bringing up racism is shameful, disgraceful, and shows that when you are losing an argument you resort to name-calling. We should be better than that. We're Democrats, not nasty child-killers like Republicans."

The explanation is that race has always been a fundamental part of why Obama's supporters support him. So, when they see someone who doesn't support him, they can't conceive even the possibility that it might not be racial.

2009 is really clearing out the cobwebs. All the ancient ideas that should have gone extinct long ago are finally being run into the ground. I hope for good. This may be the year we begin to get over racism, and many other of the left's boogymen. It's gonna be messy, but it has to happen.

Implicit in conservatives' contempt for "political correctness" is the notion that racism is tolerable, not that racist attitudes are true. The current political movement has joined a greater tolerance for racism in the ranks with a massively overblown, self-pitying sensitivity about being "opressed" by zero-tolerance attitudes towards racism.

While the merits of this stance are debatable, they are resulting in conservative politicians becoming generally unpalatable for most non-whites. In a country that is increasingly diverse, this is a death sentence for a political party that refuses to have zero-tolerance for racist attitudes for fear of alienating its base.Denialwillnothelp.

The harshness that Wimp describes is because of Obama's bait and switch radical, redistributive politics, his persistent misstatements of fact, and his disenfranchising and derogating approximately half the country.

People can put up with almost anything besides contempt. Obama has shown contempt for those who want to do things differently than he does.

“Are there some people who don’t like me because of my race? I’m sure there are. Are there some people who voted for me only because of my race? There are probably some of those too. That's not the overriding issue here. I think there are people who are anti-government.”

garage, in an attempt to actually reason with you, didn't you find it ridiculous that Ferraro and Bill Clinton were accused of racism? Or was that different?

I mean a little consistency would go a long way in establishing your credibility on this issue. I mean I know it's nice to be able to score some cheap political points using the race card on Republicans but keep in mind they did it to your own hero too.

Not sure that's the kind of company I'd want to keep but I have standards.

The old People are saying argument. I never liked it when Bush did it (Some people will say followed by an absurd statement of a political opponent's beliefs), and it's nonsense here to.

WHY doesn't Mondale want to pick a person? If they are actually racist, then by all means hold them up so they can be shamed, shunned or whatever. The fact that Mondale doesn't do this tells me that the statement(s) in question aren't at all racist.

Yes, they are upset, but not because of what color the group is, but that a parasite group exists.

Many black, latinos, etc. despise the parasites too, especially if they are part of your ethnic group. Or are they self-hating racists.

This attack on critics is based on the perceived skin color of the critic. That is the racism here. The left sees everything in racial terms. They can't decide how they feel about someone until they know what race they are. The target then becomes either a racist or an Uncle Tom, for example. Rarely is the substance of the issue gotten to, because skin color is the issue for them.

So the witch hunts against Gates, ACORN, and Van Jones [which has completely dominated the movement since Obama was elected] had nothing to do with race. Just a coincidence, right. Obama is a racist, Sotomayer is a racist, Skip Gates is a racist, all affirmative action beneficiaries, because they couldn't have excelled in higher education on their own....because? These are the claims by conservatives. No projection here at all? C'mon. Conservatives have completely abandoned any policy proposals, they aren't even asked anymore.

Implicit in conservatives' contempt for "political correctness" is the notion that racism is tolerable, not that racist attitudes are true. The current political movement has joined a greater tolerance for racism in the ranks with a massively overblown, self-pitying sensitivity about being "opressed" by zero-tolerance attitudes towards racism.

This sounds like the preamble for a document establishing a fascist dictatorship.

In the minds of the liberal-fascists, racism can only be stamped out by stamping out those they perceive who could become racists.

Did anyone notice that Mondale didn't say all criticism of Obama is racist?

Has anyone actually said all criticism of Obama is racist?

That racism is a factor in some criticism, is that really worth denying?

Republicans have a racism issue, it must be confronted and dealt with... that hardly means all republicans are racists. I think the communist-marxo-syndicalist Richard Trumka is a good model of how to speak to the base about these things. I think Huckabee could do it for Republicans.

I believe in zero tolerance of racism. I don't believe the government and the police do it! I don't think you make it illegal! I just think within your political movement, you have to kick out and shun those who are obviously racist, and I think right now Republicans aren't doing that.

I believe in zero tolerance of racism. I don't believe the government and the police do it! I don't think you make it illegal! I just think within your political movement, you have to kick out and shun those who are obviously racist, and I think right now Republicans aren't doing that.

Montagne, can we have the same conversation about how some Democrats are totalitarian communists, and so the Democrats have a problem with totalitarian communism that must be confronted and dealt with?

So the witch hunts against Gates, ACORN, and Van Jones [which has completely dominated the movement since Obama was elected] had nothing to do with race.

Someone who is pulled over by a police officer even though they weren't speeding, weren't driving dangerously, etc. could be seen as racist if the person has darker skin: DWB.

If someone is pulled over when they are speeding, veering all over the road, running into parked cars, or is driving a car reported stolen it's not racism, even if they have darker skin.

Unfortunately, those without ethics abuse charges of racism to excuse their own execrable behavior. Making them doubly unethical--for the original behavior and for the contemptible attempt to be lumped in with the truly suffering.

Third world dictators like Mugabe have undermined their whole societies based on their method.

Those who do this hate their own race and hate those who really do face difficulties in this life.

Fritz (a perfect nickname, I think), is the most overrated political figure in Minnesota. He was appointed to almost every office he ever held, and was only elected as an incumbent. Local radio drags him out whenever they need a quote.

I just think within your political movement, you have to kick out and shun those who are obviously racist, and I think right now Republicans aren't doing that.

Perhaps there are different working definitions of "obviously racist." E.g., if someone uses the word "monkey" in connection to Obama, is that "obviously racist?" I don't think so, since it has routinely been employed as a rhetorical barb for a long time, even (especially?) for noted White Person George W. Bush. If you want to declare that things that, when said about white people, are proof of "obvious racism" when said about black people - well, I'm not buying what you're selling.

garage, when you're done projecting your faux outrage, care to explain why Obama supporters called Ferraro and Clinton racists or is that different? Don't you remember that garage or did you just accept it as the typical political bullshit that it is now?

What witch hunt against Gates? Gates was the asshole shooting his mouth off about racism. Had Obama not shot his stupid mouth off it would have never even been heard about. ACORN? Help me out but is ACORN solely a black organization? Van Jones is black and Bill Ayres was white and there was just as much outrage over Obama's association with Ayres but I don't suppose you give a fuck about that do you?

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass for two seconds and realize that Obama supporters are doing to conservatives the same damn thing they did to Ferraro and Clinton in the campaign: Play the race card to win. If you can't see that then you're brain dead.

To answer a question from earlier: in 1984 Mondale won only Minnesota, only by 0.18% of the vote, and the District of Columbia. It was the most lopsided electoral college win in US history.

(McGovern was close in the electoral college loser category, winning only Massachusetts and DC, but much worse in the popular vote. I think Goldwater in 1964 holds the record for the biggest loss in the popular vote, though I may be wrong.)

I agree with you that every instance of the word "monkey" in proximity with "Obama" is not racist, but I do disagree with you that it is wrong to be sensitive about the historical weight of the word monkey when used in reference to people of African descent. I know you're not totally clueless about this, so I assume that it offends/annoys you to have to exercise any ounce of extra sensitivity about things like this. Agreed that no one should ever use accusations of racism as a weapon, and I get it that that is what Althouse has been on about. Also agreed that some democrats are guilty of the aforementioned.

BUT. This is my but. The fact that those things are true DOES NOT mean that, in fact, racist attitudes have disappeared, and that the Republican party in particular has an issue with this that is hurting them politically. Also, despite the fact that you are horribly, horribly annoyed at having to be careful about using the word monkey with Obama when it was used with Bush without criticism-- well, let me just say, you aren't doing yourself any favors. Take five seconds to think about a long, grotesque history of black folks being likened to jungle apes, i.e. being DEHUMANIZED, in the popular culture of this country. And ask yourself whether, in the interests of GAY-ASS SENSITIVITY, you might not want to pick another animal. A squirrel. A pig. A moose.

I do disagree with you that it is wrong to be sensitive about the historical weight of the word monkey when used in reference to people of African descent.

You can disagree but not with me, since I never claimed anything like that.

I have no problem with the argument that people who use the word "monkey" in connection with Obama is proof of intentional or accidental insensitivity.

I merely take issue with such things as being proof of "obvious racism."

The fact that those things are true DOES NOT mean that, in fact, racist attitudes have disappeared, and that the Republican party in particular has an issue with this that is hurting them politically.

I can agree with this too, but my experience leads me to believe that the number of actual racists in both parties is roughly the same. The Republicans have an image problem because they are held to impossibly high standards and because their opponents are permitted to demagogue the issue, primarily by the conflation of insensitivity (which is far from atypical among political opponents of all parties) and obvious racism.

Okay dude, so they aren't obvious racists. Instead, they are either dumb or jerks, pick one. In either case, they need to be spoken to by someone smarter, more sensitive, or just nicer. If you are one or all of those things, and you care about Republicans winning elections, that's your job!

No, more likely a Senate seat or chairperson of the finance committee.

The arc of W.'s career would be very different. For example, few non-legacy students with W.'s SAT score got into Yale at that time -- W. was the fifth generation of Bushes to go to Yale.

So let's assume W. goes to a more appropriate school, like Texas Tech. Without a father's clout to get him into the Air Guard, he joins ROTC and becomes a Second Lieutenant in Viet Nam. Does he survive?

If you are one or all of those things, and you care about Republicans winning elections, that's your job!

Actually if you were intellectually honest you'd realize that the Democrat party has quite a few racists in it as well. Problem is you just ignore it. Recall when Joe Lieberman wasmade up in blackface? The racist vitriol toward Condi Rice? Harry Belafonte called Powell and Rice house niggers and nary a peep from the Dem side of the aisle.

No Montagne, racism exists on all sides but I give your side credit for being able to successfully project it toward the opposition. I don't expect you to accept it but that's usually because truth tends to be a bitter pill to swallow.

"Well, Obama does have brains, and historically the brainy candidate loses to the man of action. But after eight years of a dimbulb, the brainier candidate looked pretty good."

I'll admit, that W. may not have gotten where he did if not for his name, but he was a very successful and bipartisan governor of one of the largest states. That puts you at the top of the Presidential list, regardless.

Being an unaccomplished, brand new Senator for 3 months does not (smart or not)

There were lots of similarly smart Democrats who did not have a shot despite much more accomplishment.

Frankly, I'm not seeing great evidence of this "brains" (not even college transcripts) other than the superficial displays intended to imply it. His decisions and world view display naiveté unparalleled since Carter (who I voted for).

Being a good speech giver and black is clearly a big plus, and the same resume' in white skin would never have beat Hillary with that vajayjay power.

So let's assume W. goes to a more appropriate school, like Texas Tech. Without a father's clout to get him into the Air Guard, he joins ROTC and becomes a Second Lieutenant in Viet Nam. Does he survive?

Oh I don't know. What were the statistics of survival for a 13 month stint in Nam?

I'm not really arguing your premise FLS. W got to where he was rather than Nam because of his daddy. Ted Kennedy got to where he was rather than rotting in prison because of his daddy.

Then why do we need AA? If they were capable without it, then all it did was make their accomplishment suspect; a terrible outcome.

I really think AA has done a number on some people. In my college ethics class, we got the affirmative action discussion and one of the black girls in my class got up and said she knew she probably wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for AA and she didn’t sound happy about it. I thought it was very sad that she didn’t have any pride in herself for getting into school, because she didn’t feel like it was her accomplishments that got her there. I have always remembered that.

So what are you saying, Althouse? That there is NO racism in the criticisms against Obama? The witch doctor photos have no racial edge? If your answer is yes, then you are lamer than lame. If your answer is no, then why don't you stop complaining about people pointing out something that is obviously true?

Of course there are, in all colors, and parties, so what? There always were and there always will be.

I'm on the right, and I know there are some people over here that are racists, but I also know they are on the other side in similar numbers. I don't like their views, but they have a right to them, we will likely only change a small few in our lifetime. But they are not important to the issues at hand. They are only important as weapons against the people you oppose, not their ideas.

When you take that tact you are saying that you are weak on the argument and don't think you can win it. It's equivalent to picking up a rock in a debate.

"Another boring Democratic loser calls criticism of Obama racist." WRONG. Huge, mindless conservative trope! NO ONE on the left is calling criticism of Obama racist. It makes right-wingers feel good to attack this straw man of theirs which I think has emerged to become the biggest, most ubiquitous straw man the Right has going right now. The Left aren't calling ALL Obama criticism racist; we're calling MUCH of the visceral rage on display driven by racism. This is only obvious to anyone who has their eyes open and a sense of the reality that:

Liberalism and racism are diametrically opposed.

That’s right, I said it. Now before you get all huffy and defensive and bring up Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Sen. Byrd, those tired examples, take time to see what I’m actually saying. Exhibit A:

"Liberals are so open-minded their brains fell out!"

Sound familiar? That's attacking liberals for being too open-minded! It’s provincial but completely consistent with concerns inherent to social conservatism. Of course conservatives won’t accept this and I leave it to you all then to explain how that familiar attack doesn’t help my argument. But for you moderates and self-professed independents, maybe this’ll have a ring of truth to it.

Now, open-mindedness is diametrically opposed to racism. Agreed? Thus, liberalism is too if we take that socially conservative gripe at its word and equate liberals to open-mindedness. Note: I am not saying conservatism and racism are synonymous. I’m saying that liberalism (in its broad sense inclusive of its political meaning but not confined to it) and open-mindedness are synonymous, and conservatism (in its broad sense inclusive of its political meaning but not confined to it) and close-mindedness synonymous, but racism is only a subset of close-mindedness. It’s a small circle contained in the large circle of close-mindedness. So one can be conservative and not racist, but one can’t be racist and not conservative, at least in that one aspect of themselves. Similarly, one can be 90% liberal, but if 10% of them is racist, that part is conservative. Sorry.Related study showing how liberal and conservative brains are different: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.htmlhttp://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,2687256.story

This denial of racists congregating on the right is so tired and sickening. Visit Yahoo! political chat sometime. Unlike this more collegiate forum, it’s more regular folks. Join a crowded room and in no time you’ll see some non-trollish racist sentiment cropping up and I guarantee in every single case you’ll see it’s coming from the right if you’re honest. And this goes back to before Obama showed up. If I had a time machine, I’d take you there. Well, that’d be a pretty wasted trip, but you get the idea. Anyway, yeah, racism is a conservative (broadly speaking) trait.

No, don't argue. We know that you hate logic. Examples abound. It's clear every day that logic and liberal thought have no common ground, as revealed in liberal supporters who repeatedly engage in non-logical rhetoric. Go to any liberal site and you'll see a hatred of logic in full bloom.

Another boring loser liberal whining about being called out on their half-baked health care/economic bailout/foreign policy/military strategy/cash for clunkers/ACORN scandals/trutherism/budget deficits/etc.

More than half of Democrats believe Bush planned 9/11 or knew of it before hand and didn't stop it and that fire won't melt steel.

Simply not true. There is nothing in current liberalism that supports this. Indeed, liberalism is responsible for the creation of government subsidized ghettos and welfare programs that have kept blacks on the Democrat plantation for the past 40 years.

Somewhere the word racist in grievance politics began meaning any person who complains about being falsely accused of being a rascist while they lacked the bona fides that they always favored the accuser's race over their own race in the recieving of society's favor. Equal has not been an allowed stance to take. But more and more people are taking it and saying enough is enough.

Well I notice that the liberals who keep insisting there is racism have yet to provide an answer under what basis Ferraro and Clinton were accused of racism by Obama backers?

Anyone of you care to answer? Was the liberal Democrat Ferraro a racist for saying that Obama is where he is because he's a black man? Was Clinton a racist for mentioning that Jesse also won N. Carolina?

Its a moot point considering that liberals had already assumed that a vote against Obama was indicative of racism therefore any opposition of Obama had to be racism. Because we all know that if Obama was a white man, we'd all be embracing government health care, higher taxes, cap n trade.

My suggestion is that you actually try arguing Obama's policies on their merits rather than the color of his skin.

For a good dose of racism in its pure refined nuanced open-minded liberal form, one so rarified its not even recognized as racism, have a look through the comments of any given post on Michelle Malkin. Don't care to look for one? OK, allow me. Ah, 1 minute. Here's one Book Wars Washington Post. Skip the article go straight to the comments.

All the racist comments I hear emanate from the left-o-sphere, some of them rather amusing, some of them only observations and others mere ridiculous racial generalizations, some jokes, but the fixation on race is firmly on the Left.

[ A gay friend of mine alluding to someone's weight says, "She's got more chins than a San Francisco phonebook."

I’m saying that liberalism (in its broad sense inclusive of its political meaning but not confined to it) and open-mindedness are synonymous, and conservatism (in its broad sense inclusive of its political meaning but not confined to it) and close-mindedness synonymous, but racism is only a subset of close-mindedness.

The non-racists' views are not tainted by the fact that racists happen to agree with them on the subject of health care.

Forcing non-racists who oppose Obama's health care plans to take responsibility for the racism of the racists who happen to agree with them is a bad-faith form of argument by the plan's proponents.

The Obama supporters know this, but they do it anyway. They also know, or should know, how incendiary the charge is. Knowing this does not stay their hands. They are so eager to win, they are blind to the rank immorality and ultimate futility of this scurrilous kind of attack.

I used to like Mondale. I thought he was a decent guy -- not a narcissist like his ex-boss. So this is very disappointing.

Are Obama's supporters on this issue really so unable to argue the plan on its merits? Their continued resort to baseless name-calling pushes me, a long-time Democrat of somewhat conservative views who voted for Obama, more firmly into opposition.

My particular path on this issue is reflected in the polling of independents who are rapidly abandoning Obama.

The racism allegations are really hurting Obama among this group, not just the health plan. These voters, many of whom supported Obama, know they aren't racists. They have surely never voted for a racist candidate. For a Mondale-level Democrat, i.e. respected wise man of the party, to indulge in this kind of politics will, if unchecked, destroy Obama's chances for even a mediocre term.

Obama has made known he disagrees with this position, but he hasn't called anyone out on it. His "Sister Souljah Moment" would be to directly criticize, by name, Carter, Mondale and anyone else who is using this kind of rhetoric in his name. I would say his presidency hinges on it.

I’m saying that liberalism (in its broad sense inclusive of its political meaning but not confined to it) and open-mindedness are synonymous,

That hasn't been true since about 1983, or whatever date you want to pick for the full-on arrival of political correctness, speech codes, sensitivity training, etc. in universities. The intellectual left makes a garish show of its closed-mindedness with its rigid insistence on what constitutes acceptable discourse. They have a very broad view of what might constitute racism, sexism, homophobism, and other -isms of the "privileged," and a very low tolerance for disagreement when they think they can convict a person or US institution of these sins.

In this health care debate, Obama has displayed a variation on this form of discourse by claiming that anyone with a serious problem with his plans for health care can only be a liar, a victim of being lied to, or an insincere astroturfer being paid off by corporate interests to represent their views. Imputing motives rather than answering arguments is pretty much what the 'open minded' liberal does in debates nowadays.

"The explanation is that race has always been a fundamental part of why Obama's supporters support him. So, when they see someone who doesn't support him, they can't conceive even the possibility that it might not be racial."

Obama has made known he disagrees with this position, but he hasn't called anyone out on it. His "Sister Souljah Moment" would be to directly criticize, by name, Carter, Mondale and anyone else who is using this kind of rhetoric in his name. I would say his presidency hinges on it.

However, he won't do that because in his heart of hearts, he believes it to be true. And like all true believers he can't understand that his beliefs aren't universally held.

FLS,"So let's assume W. goes to a more appropriate school, like Texas Tech. Without a father's clout to get him into the Air Guard, he joins ROTC and becomes a Second Lieutenant in Viet Nam. Does he survive?"

Probably a greater likelihood of surviving a tour in Vietnam than of surviving the flying he did with the National Guard.

In this health care debate, Obama has displayed a variation on this form of discourse by claiming that anyone with a serious problem with his plans for health care can only be a liar, a victim of being lied to, or an insincere astroturfer being paid off by corporate interests to represent their views..

No he didn't. And neither has anyone suggested any criticism of Obama is racist. Strawman Fail.

Yes, my logic would indeed be faulty if I built it on a conservative gripe I considered completely wrong. But I obviously agree with the part about our being open-minded, but not the part about our brains falling out (i.e., makes us irrational). Yes, it's cherry-picking, but I'm plucking the true part out to use conservatives' own words against them.

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\

5 : broad-minded

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\

3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative

Yes, and I submit being disposed toward existing views (such as man's historical tribalism) is quite antonymous to being disposed toward new views (breaking out of tribalism; multicultural).

For a good dose of racism in its pure refined nuanced open-minded liberal form...

Reread what I said:

...but racism is only a subset of close-mindedness. It’s a small circle contained in the large circle of close-mindedness. So one can be conservative and not racist, but one can’t be racist and not conservative, at least in that one aspect of themselves. Similarly, one can be 90% liberal, but if 10% of them is racist, that part is conservative.

Tone, to be fair to your pursuit of logic, the basic problem is that your premises are not agreed upon. They are assertions, which you then use to develop your syllogisms, which are themselves premised on leaps rather than logical points.

In other words, you're playing with words and trying to make them sound like logical steps. Instead of doing that, however, you are assuming definitions and shaping your argument in a slippery way which of course proves your point.

And of course you're not open-minded. If you were you would accept the arguments of MOST (as you put it) conservatives have concerns decidedly distinct from racism.

And that's the basic argument against your sophomoric attempt. You most likely woke up this morning and had a great line of thought, ran it by some liberal apologetics friends, and they all said that was devastating. Now you try it out only to find that real opponents dispute it in the first sentences.

You are not open-minded and you have no sense of what it would mean to be truly open-minded as opposed to adopting the rhetorical facade of open-mindedness in order to better pursue your blatant discrimination. Indeed, you're so close-minded that you can't even begin to see how others might dispute your basic premise. Which doesn't make you a conservative, and probably means you're not a liberal.

That kind of self-unaware closed-mindedness masked in an open-minded facade is very common in progressive thought, however.

"Beging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place"

Fallacy #1 Liberalism = open minded. Your initial statement "begs the question" since you don't prove or have any logic as to the veracity of your first statement.

Circular logic is a subset of the fallacy known as "begging the question," wherein one posits an argument that assumes its conclusion in its premises. Circular logic is basically an explicit form of begging the question: it is immediately obvious that the conclusion is assumed in the premises

The conclusion of your argument that Conservatives are racists is included in the premises as the opposition to your first fallacious premise that Liberal = open minded and therefore Conservatives must = the opposite.

"A circular argument is one which assumes the very thing it aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive"

You are assuming in your premises that Conservatives are racists and therefore reach the conclusion that Conservatives are racist. Classic case of a circular argument.

When an entire movement is defined with the non stop obsession of Skip Gates, ACORN, Van Jones, it's hard to imagine any of it is race related, isn't it.

"Non-stop"? You mean a week or two of harsh criticism? That's "non-stop"?

Obama and the Dems' attacks on Rush and Palin have gone on FAR longer.

So the witch hunts against Gates, ACORN, and Van Jones [which has completely dominated the movement since Obama was elected] had nothing to do with race.

So, when the Left attacked, say, the Catholic Church over their sex scandal --- that was just Christian bashing alone, right?

Right?

ACORN's problems were quite well-documented long before Obama even came into the picture. Gates and Obama made that a racial issue. Van Jones was a Communist and a Truther (well, true, that's mainstream in the Dem party, but still)...

I believe in zero tolerance of racism. I don't believe the government and the police do it! I don't think you make it illegal! I just think within your political movement, you have to kick out and shun those who are obviously racist, and I think right now Republicans aren't doing that.

Well, they don't have any former Klansmen in positions of eminence in the GOP.

So, I bet the DNC can make similar claims...

The arc of W.'s career would be very different. For example, few non-legacy students with W.'s SAT score got into Yale at that time -- W. was the fifth generation of Bushes to go to Yale.

I think Bush was being compared to Ted Kennedy --- except Bush wasn't kicked out for cheating.

So what are you saying, Althouse? That there is NO racism in the criticisms against Obama? The witch doctor photos have no racial edge?

I can reference pix of people praising the downing of the WTC in 2001. I can reference pix of people holding posters calling for an increase in fragging.

Yet, I don't feel it'd be fair to tie the entire anti-war movement to them. But, hey, apparently it WAS. Who knew?

I'll respond to only those attempting to refute the overall logic I laid out in my argument rather than out-of context remarks.

I doubt anybody here feels the desire to raise the level of your discourse to the level of actually being an argument by offering a rebuttal.

Yes, my logic would indeed be faulty if I built it on a conservative gripe I considered completely wrong.

You being poorly educated is not a solid defense of weak logic.

Reread what I said:

...but racism is only a subset of close-mindedness. It’s a small circle contained in the large circle of close-mindedness. So one can be conservative and not racist, but one can’t be racist and not conservative, at least in that one aspect of themselves. Similarly, one can be 90% liberal, but if 10% of them is racist, that part is conservative.

Notice how multiple people have said you engage in circular logic?

You've just highlighted that for us. Thanks.

I've not seen logic as weak as yours outside of the Amazon political forums.

Fallacy #1 Liberalism = open minded. Your initial statement "begs the question" since you don't prove or have any logic as to the veracity of your first statement.

Fair enough. You're right. My initial post was incomplete. I should've included after this

"Liberals are so open-minded their brains fell out!"

this which I put in a subsequent post.

[Now],my logic would indeed be faulty if I built it on a conservative gripe I considered completely wrong. But I obviously agree with the part about our being open-minded, but not the part about our brains falling out (i.e., makes us irrational). Yes, it's cherry-picking, but I'm plucking the true part out to use conservatives' own words against them.

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\

5 : broad-minded

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\

3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative

Yes, and I submit being disposed toward existing views (such as man's historical tribalism) is quite antonymous to being disposed toward new views (breaking out of tribalism; multicultural).

So just cut & paste it into my initial post with your imagination if you could. Thanks.

That's like replying to the claim "gay people are unhappy about Bush's attempt to ban gay marriage" by pointing out that according to the dictionary gay people are, by definition, happy.

Liberalism is a political movement made up of people who are largely non-liberal. Indeed, they spend much of their time trying to either keep the government as intrusive and expansive as it has been for generations...

"conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. "

Read: Liberals are good people. Conservatives are stupid, unable to tell one letter from another.

Or: Liberals have no standards, and can be made to believe anything at all, no matter how ridiculous.

... Conservatives quickly discover how to avoid time-wasting. Recognizing the preponderance of Ms over Ws, vote M. Spending valuable thought on being precise about M vs W is a waste of your time. The more crucial question is: when the incentive to be right is correct, who is more accurate? For example, why spend effort on trivial matter whose consequences of being wrong are zero?

I read the study. In contrast to their interpretation, it tells me that liberals easily do what they're told. Conservatives resist.

The scientific method is purely open-minded. It has to be. And scientists are forced to think in this manner. That you can't seem to appreciate the accomplishments of science and that you hold such a low opinion of scientists and the scientific method only bolsters my argument.

This is going to blow your mind, tone. The more or less political equivalent of the Repbulican Party in Australia is called the Liberal Party. You might have to revise your whole theory, because obviously if they're the liberals in Australia then their union-supported, arty type, we're-smarter-than-you-and-we-know-it opposition must be the conservatives. I recommend aspirin if your head starts pounding too hard.

Haha, nicely put. Look, I see a genuine role for conservatives to be ever vigilant about keeping a moral check on scientists to kind of slow them down here and there so we don't get some Island of Dr. Moreau stuff happening with pigs and dogs swapping heads (although, that'd be kind of interesting...). Okay, let's make it pigs and people swapping heads. I'd have to stand abreast you as we stand athwart together to stop these scientific butchers and their mad quest to find out if a person with a pig head would still like bacon for breakfast or whatever.

Yes, I'm vaguely aware of that role reversal stuff and thanks for making my life harder. But hey, do places like Australia's, Japan's or England's opinions really count? I kid. Seriously, that's just nominal icing. No big deal. The core meanings are the same whatever their words are for our versions of liberal and conservative.

I think Tone is really using more of a No True Scotsman than a pure Begging the Question.

E.g., "Tone, some liberals are obviously not very open-minded."

"No TRUE liberals are not open-minded!"

Open-mindedness doesn't mean infinite tolerance. Open-minded means receptive to new ideas, but if those ideas have been tried and shown to be less than optimal or downright unsuccessful and conservatives are resolutely obstinate in not trying what liberals are saying to be possibly a better way, that doesn't make us less open-minded, it makes you guys.

And as a more general thing, tone, so many of your answers and points are so incredibly naive and/or shallow and/or totally lacking in any sign of real world experience and sophistication that I just assumed you're a very young student (which may not be the case). Of course, education comes in many forms and if you learn something useful here that's a good thing.

Here are some examples of things you've said in this thread that just makes me shake my head:

"The scientific method is purely open-minded. It has to be. And scientists are forced to think in this manner."

In a sense this is true but is inadequate to describe the real world. While the scientific method might be "open-minded" (as if a method could have a mind in the first place), actual scientists are human beings like everyone else and are subject to the same petty human weaknesses. They can be jealous, overly-ambitious, arrogant, defensive about their intellectual ideas and on and on. On the whole, science comes to correct conclusions over time but not because each individual scientist is some sort of saint. Rather, what frequently happens is that one relatively close-minded group of scientists defends it's pet theory (sometimes viciously) against another relatively close-minded group of scientists who have a different theory. One or the other is eventually proven right (sometimes long after members of both groups are dead) and science as a whole advances but with neither group ever practicing the noble, selfless open-mindedness you're convinced is the essence of their existence.

And keep in mind also, that "conservatism" plays a huge role in science. Not every new theory that comes out is worth the paper its printed on. In fact, many (most?) are hogwash. In that sense, science is an extremely conservative endeavor. If you have a new theory, you're expected to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Having a preponderance of the evidence is not good enough to overturn an existing theory. Beyond a reasonable doubt is even a fairly weak standard. You have to dot all your i's, cross all your t's and generally prove not only the theory, but the implications of the theory, the implications of those implications, etc. Fly-by-night trendy stuff gets weeded out and left by the wayside. In the meantime, the arguments can get quite heated and be fought out on many levels, not all of them entirely logical. There are very few Mr. Spocks in the real world.

That one example turned out to be longer than I intended. Here's a few other points.

Seven Machos: " It is convenient for you to lump all racism on the right. Wrong, but convenient."

I agree with Seven Machoes. I have been to plenty of blue states that have as many or more racists (as far as I can see) than the Southern state I live in. And you haven't seen anything until you've seen liberals go off on black people they don't like using some of the vilest, most racially-tinged language and allusions of recent times. Using blackface, calling Colin Powell a house nigger, ... stuff just beyond the pale (no, that's not a caucausian reference). Of course, Seven is also right that it is extremely convenient for you to lump it all together and blame it on "those other people" so the temptation must be overwhelming. It certainly makes you feel righteous, doesn't it? It just doesn't stand up to actual unbiased inquiry.

So true. Just putting a label on something to give it a name doesn't make it a true description. In case you didn't get it, that was my point in my Australian related comment above. Just because people call themselves liberal or open-minded doesn't mean they are. And there's plenty of available evidence that they aren't. If you want everybody to act a certain way, namely your way, you can't honestly call yourself a liberal. Here are some examples, "I don't understand why someone would want to carry a gun, therefore I'm going to make it illegal." "I don't understand why some people are against Barack Obama, therefore I'm going to assume they are racist." "I don't think eating trans fats is good, therefore I'm going to keep everyone else from doing it." "I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to make a rule against you saying it." Because I'm liberal and open-minded. One more point on labeling. The formal name of the former communist and totalitarian East Germany was the German Democratic Republic. The first word might have been true but hardly the second two.

tone: "...but racism is only a subset of close-mindedness. It’s a small circle contained in the large circle of close-mindedness. So one can be conservative and not racist, but one can’t be racist and not conservative, at least in that one aspect of themselves. Similarly, one can be 90% liberal, but if 10% of them is racist, that part is conservative."

You're mixing apples and oranges there. And probably tomatoes, too. What if you came from a society entirely free of racism. Say it had been that way for hundreds of years. Then for some reason you don't understand, a political candidate got up and said, "I think we should assign jobs in society based on people's skin color. If you're Color A, you can pick one of these jobs. And if you're Color B you can pick one of these jobs." What if you stood up against that new idea? Would you be the liberal or the conservative? From other comments you made you've made it clear that newer is always better. Older is always conservative is always worse. Would you just go along with the new idea because it was new? Is that enough? Or would you be happy to be a "non-racist" "conservative" fighting a racist "liberal"? My point is you are way too glib in categorizing the infinite complexity of human existence. Your argument is so reductionist that it's pitiful. This last part is especially stupid: "Similarly, one can be 90% liberal, but if 10% of them is racist, that part is conservative." No, that part is racist. It really has nothing to do with conservatism either way. You're just calling it conservative because it makes you feel better than acknowledging that some political liberals are also racists. In fact, I'm convinced that many are liberals because they are racist. They feel guilty about their true subconscious beliefs and try to redeem themselves by being extra liberal. It's also why they don't understand conservatives who are comfortable in their skin because they can't conceive of not having that inner guilt gnawing away at them all the time. In fact, those conservatives who are past that point of feeling racial guilt and seeing everything through the lens of race are the true post-racialists.

tone: "Yes, and I submit being disposed toward existing views (such as man's historical tribalism) is quite contrary to being disposed toward new views (breaking out of tribalism; multicultural)."

I'm still not sure why you think new is automatically better. Conservatism, in its practical sense, doesn't necessarily mean keeping things for the sake of keeping things. It means keeping them if they are beneficial and useful and have passed the test of time. Trading what's proven for what some scam artist is trying to sell you is a bad trade. You talk about breaking out of tribalism as if we're living in a tribal society. Believe me, we aren't. I've lived in a tribal society and that's not what we have. And it hasn't been since day one. I also can't help noting that the entire world spent practically the entire 20th centure breaking out of one thing or another and landing squarely in the lap of new views such as Marxism, Leninism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Fascism, Pol Potism, Maoism, Shining Pathism, Stalinism and on and on ad nauseum. Compared to that, conservatism looks quite good. "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." It seems to me that the history of the 20th century could be summed up by saying that too many people, and way too many of them who were ostensibly intelligent and well-educated, didn't have the wisdom to know the difference. Thank god for the conservatives (who were at the same time the liberals) who saved the world from complete subjugation by these forces of "progress" and change.

In closing, I would say you need to shake things up a bit in your mind. You're way too close-minded in trying to pigeonhole human existence and human psychology into neat little divisible boxes. It just ain't so. There are a million shades of gray and you need to open your eyes a little wider to see them.

Tone, I don't know if you'll read all of this but it was still worth typing anyway.

Oh, I forgot to mention, I think multiculturalism is twaddle. There are worthwhile ideas in it, but to use your circle analogy, multiculturalism is a tiny little despotic circle inside a much bigger circle of general human tolerance. You can have one without the other. You can treat people right because it's the right thing to do without fetishizing the whole concept of diversity for diversity's sake and imposing it like it's some sort of religion. Again, just because it's new doesn't mean it's better. It's frequently just an excuse for some people to take it upon themselves to tell other people what to do. There are always people who are up for fulfilling that role and capital M "Multiculturalism" is a tool they use to do that. I haven't seen anybody prove that it'll be a net positive to society. I think increasing tolerance will be a net benefit but the multiculturalism industry is just another utopian political scam of which, as I already mentioned above, we've had entirely too many examples in the past 100 years. So, tell me, am I a "conservative" because I want more tolerance and less "multiculturalism"? Am I a racist even? Ooh, I hadn't thought about that...

If you see an inverse relationship between scientific-mindedness and close-mindedness as I do, here you go.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "scientific-minded" and "open-minded" are the same thing. They aren't (science is a deliberately restrictive mode of thinking), but let's pretend. What that would mean, according to the study you cite, is that there is a population of open-minded individuals who are more likely to be "liberal" than "conservative". Ok, let's say that's true.

You're attempting to draw the conclusion "therefore, liberals are more open-minded than conservatives". That's illogical and unscientific. "Most X are both Y and Z" does not imply "Y are Z", nor does it imply "those which are not Y are also not Z".

So you see, tone, even if we accepted the basic premises you're using here, your conclusions would still be logical fallacies. Nice try, though.

In a sense this is true but is inadequate to describe the real world… actual scientists are human beings like everyone else and are subject to the same petty human weaknesses... neither group ever practicing the noble, selfless open-mindedness you're convinced is the essence of their existence.

Of course scientists are flawed human beings too. I, as a liberal, am proud of that Pew stat regardless.

And keep in mind also, that "conservatism" plays a huge role in science.

I wouldn’t say huge, I’d say equal. Look at it this way: conservatism and liberalism are needed in equal measure to put a check on each other, not just in science but in life. Conservatism’s stalwartness is needed to put a check on liberalism’s flightiness and, in turn, liberalism’s open-mindedness is needed to counter conservatism’s close-mindedness. So I’m being intellectually honest here and allowing there’s a bad side to liberalism (flightiness) and a good side to conservatism (stalwartness) to juxtapose liberalism’s good side (open-mindedness) and conservatism’s bad side (close-mindedness). In other words, liberalism’s open-mindedness is good, but too much of it is bad where it becomes flightiness. Similarly, conservatism’s stalwartness is good, but too much of it is bad where it becomes close-mindedness. Like this:

Now to my thinking, racism belongs on the bad side of conservatism under close-mindedness. A counterexample might be irresponsibility which I would place on the bad side of liberalism under flightiness. Ring true to you at all? It does to me and I’m just making this up as I go along. It’s just word logic. Anyway, so if I can acknowledge irresponsibility is a purely liberal trait that not all liberals possess, can you acknowledge racism is a purely conservative trait that not all conservatives possess?

Just putting a label on something to give it a name doesn't make it a true description.

Well, I’m just using dictionary definitions and what appears to me to be unstrained logic, plus scientific and sociological findings. I’m not pigeonholing people here -- words, traits, and concepts, sure -- but not people. People are too complex. Labels like "liberal" or "conservative" aren’t meant to describe anyone precisely anyway. At least I sure don’t look at it that way.

You're mixing apples and oranges there. And probably tomatoes, too. What if you came from a society entirely free of racism. Say it had been that way for hundreds of years. Then for some reason you don't understand, a political candidate got up and said, "I think we should assign jobs in society based on people's skin color. If you're Color A, you can pick one of these jobs. And if you're Color B you can pick one of these jobs." What if you stood up against that new idea? Would you be the liberal or the conservative?

Based on that little info of only two traits -- 1) anti-racism 2) traditional -- I’d say liberal-leaning. Why? Because as I’ve posited, anti-racism is an absolutely liberal trait, but as far as conservatives liking tradition and liberals liking change, the dictionary uses the words "disposed to"

Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive 3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views

which I would call a tendency, not an absolute. And since an absolute is stronger than a tendency, I say liberal-leaning.

From other comments you made you've made it clear that newer is always better.

"If you see an inverse relationship between scientific-mindedness and close-mindedness as I do, here you go."

You're attempting to draw the conclusion "therefore, liberals are more open-minded than conservatives". That's illogical and unscientific. "Most X are both Y and Z" does not imply "Y are Z", nor does it imply "those which are not Y are also not Z".

Could you say what X, Y, and Z equal? Anyway, I forgot I said that and no longer agree with it. I ran into problems in trying to come up with a liberal counterexample of racism to flesh out this argument. I made scientific-mindedness equal parts liberal and conservative, but it still is nice to know far more scientists self-identify as liberal than conservative, at least in that one Pew poll I linked to.

I’m not pigeonholing people. I don’t think a purely conservative or purely liberal person is even possible.

Oh, I forgot to mention, I think multiculturalism is twaddle.

It’s only hurting your argument and helping mine that you’re demonstrating exactly the conservative tendency I described of being disposed toward man’s historical tribalism and away from its newer, liberal opposite -- i.e., multiculturalism which, btw, is increasingly necessary for man’s survival in a world with ever-increasing social mobility, economic interdependence, and nuclear destructive capability. (Shout out to Bob Wright.)

I ran into problems in trying to come up with a liberal counterexample of racism

That's easy: racism. There are countless forms of racism enthusiastically endorsed by liberals and opposed by conservatives, from the eugenics projects of the 20s to the affirmative action policies of today.

My mistake. I took your remark to be showing the ability to humorously poke fun at oneself combined with a serious intellectual point with perhaps a dash of sarcasm tossed in, but it turns out it was only 100% sarcasm and to you that’s nuance.

That's easy: racism. There are countless forms of racism enthusiastically endorsed by liberals and opposed by conservatives, from the eugenics projects of the 20s to the affirmative action policies of today.

Then can you tell me some conservative forms of racism? And if you can’t do that, can you at least offer some negative aspect of conservatism gone too far? What is right-wing extremism to you?

"It’s only hurting your argument and helping mine that you’re demonstrating exactly the conservative tendency I described of being disposed toward man’s historical tribalism and away from its newer, liberal opposite -- i.e., multiculturalism which, btw, is increasingly necessary for man’s survival in a world with ever-increasing social mobility, economic interdependence, and nuclear destructive capability."

I know you're against straw man arguments and someone putting words in your mouth so it would be great if you refrained from doing the same. I never mentioned anything about being disposed toward tribalism. In fact, I mentioned that I've lived in a tribal society (for several years), which I'm guessing you haven't, and I didn't have any praise for it. It's ridiculous and highly inefficient in many ways. But that doesn't mean that multiculturalism isn't a crock of you know what. It's fake, fake, fake. Real people with real differences have been getting along in real ways for thousands of years without an official religion of multiculturalism to tell them how to behave. Multiculturalism is just another form of feel good social utopianism. We can get along just fine, and probably better, without it since it doesn't actually take into account real people and real human psychology. Just as Marxism didn't and many other of the isms I mentioned in my comment above didn't. The answer to human conflict isn't fetishized pollyanaish tripe. It's real people getting on with their real lives with each other, a tradition we've had since the founding of the country. A tradition (hey, there's that word) that has no basis in tribalism whatsoever, but rather in the words and ideas of the Constitution. Or have you forgotten "All men are created equal"?

Compared to that, multiculturalism is tribalism. And you can have it. I'll keep the ideas and ideals of the Constitution, thank you very much. Those are the most liberal and truly liberating ideas of all time.

"And keep in mind also, that "conservatism" plays a huge role in science."

'I wouldn’t say huge, I’d say equal.'

I would stick to my original assertion and say huge. Changing a scientific theory is like steering the Titanic. Sharp turns aren't usually on the agenda. Major changes generally take years, even decades, of accumulating evidence to move the ship of science in a new direction. Think evolution, think the geological history of the earth, think the divisions of matter - it's slow, laborious, step-by-step additions of bits of knowledge to the generally prevailing views, punctuated very rarely by paradigm shifts that are exciting but far from the rule. But the net result is, when a theory or scientific explanation does change, it's because it's earned it the hard way, by overcoming any possible objection raised by the previous theory. Without an inherent conservatism, science would just be new age tripe.

"Look at it this way: conservatism and liberalism are needed in equal measure to put a check on each other, not just in science but in life. Conservatism’s stalwartness is needed to put a check on liberalism’s flightiness and, in turn, liberalism’s open-mindedness is needed to counter conservatism’s close-mindedness. So I’m being intellectually honest here and allowing there’s a bad side to liberalism (flightiness) and a good side to conservatism (stalwartness) to juxtapose liberalism’s good side (open-mindedness) and conservatism’s bad side (close-mindedness). In other words, liberalism’s open-mindedness is good, but too much of it is bad where it becomes flightiness. Similarly, conservatism’s stalwartness is good, but too much of it is bad where it becomes close-mindedness."

Yes, well said, life is about balance, at least a generally successful life is. Either extreme leads to problems. Different problems, but still big problems.

Where I think you start to go wrong, though, is when you start classifying things on this scale where this scale doesn't really apply very well.

"Now to my thinking, racism belongs on the bad side of conservatism under close-mindedness."

I just don't think you can pigeonhole racism in this way. As Revenant has pointed out, so called liberals, full of new ideas, seem to have a pretty strong historical record of their own racism. And, no, it doesn't work to make the argument that if they're racist ideas, then they must be conservative. That's just begging the question, as someone above pointed out.

"Anyway, so if I can acknowledge irresponsibility is a purely liberal trait that not all liberals possess, can you acknowledge racism is a purely conservative trait that not all conservatives possess?"

Honestly, I can't. Because I think the premise in the first part of your question is wrong and thought so even before I got to the second part of your question. Because I think your initial premise is wrong, I don't think b follows from a. Both a and b are wrong. Irresponsibility knows no political persuasion and neither does racism. I honestly think you're confusing apples and oranges. Of course, the general premise is true, one side can have a subset of members believe something that the group as a whole does not. That can happen on both sides. But the specific examples you pick are not amenable to that absolutist classification. Irresponsibility is manifest in every demographic, intellectual, income, ethnic and other group. And racism and paternalism (of which racism is a subset) knows no specific bounds either. Some of the biggest pricks in the world are liberal paternalists/racists who think they are god's gift to humanity.

As to the definitions of liberal and conservative ("tending to") that's fine as far as it goes. But, if used honestly in dictionary terms, those definitions say absolutely nothing about the quality of the old ideas being preserved or of the new ideas being promoted. But you're tending to fuzz the distinction. Which is why I gave the example of the non-racist society where someone is trying to introduce racism. The tendency towards new or old has nothing directly to do with the content of the new or old. Either one could be good or bad.

So, the key is, what is the content of the ideas. And I happen to like the 235-year-old ideas ("all men are created equal", "they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" [note: I'm not arguing the god part here, that's just a direct quote], "deriving their just power from the consent of the governed", etc.) I like those ideas much more than the fancy new ideas from 100 years ago ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", "the dictatorship of the proletariat", the party is the "leading and guiding force of Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organizations and public organizations", "we should judge everyone by the ethnic group they come from not by the content of their character", "every culture is equal").

Okay, the last two aren't from 100 years ago but from a time much more recent. However, they are equally vile and ultimately destructive. They don't speak to human freedom (though they pretend to) in nearly the same way as the other ideas I mentioned - "all men are created equal". They are making the same mistake Karl Marx made based on the same mistaken premise - that people are not individuals, but rather part of a mass. When you make that fundamental an error in your premises it's no wonder that you can produce all sorts of harebrained schemes as a result. In the words of E.O. Wilson (noted ant expert), "Socialism - great idea, wrong species." And he wasn't talking about the ants when he said, "Wrong species."

Quick close (even I'm praying for it): Two wrongs don't make a right. Because racism is bad, that doesn't mean that anything that isn't racism, or even somehow appears to be the opposite of racism, is good. Ideas should be judged on their own merit. And multiculturalism is almost meritless. Tolerance is good, social equality is good, peace and freedom and love is good, multiculturalism is an intellectually bankrupt reaction to racism that is basically a waste of time. As Nike would say, "Just do it!"

As another example of false dichotomies, the opposite of far left isn't far right. They're both wrong. They're both vile. They're both totalitarian and collectivist, freedom-killing ideologies. They're two peas in a pod. One might be yellow and one might be green but they're still in the same pod. In fact, they're not even named properly. They are both far collectivist and statist. The opposite of both is freedom, free will and free association among free people. Those are the "conservative" ideas that our founding fathers considered liberal and I still do.